Cordero first made the news when she alleged that Epstein told her he could help her get a "modeling" career and used her for sex when she was 16. Then the Postreported she was born a man! And that she had talked about "masturbatory" fantasies on Myspace! And then they ran off and got a dismissive quote about Cordero from Epstein's flack, Howard Rubensteing—who is also the Post's own flack! A fact which they did not disclose, which is shady as fuck.

So Cordero sued the paper for libel, and now, the judge has ruled. In favor of the Post! Basically the judge said that, yes, they reported that she had sexy fantasies, but not that she actually did the sexy things, and the average person wouldn't think she's a "promiscuous slut" (exact legal language!) just because she had dreams of getting triple-teamed. Hell, the judge himself has animal fantasies that would make you sick, but he's a straitlaced guy in real life. We made that up. But if you want to call somebody a slut in print, just make sure you call them a fantasy slut. Relevant portion of the ruling:

Plaintiff's libel cause of action is predicated on the theory that the October 23 article was libelous per se because the statement that "[o]n one [of the Myspace pages], [plaintiff] gives a graphic depiction of a masturbatory fantasy' she has of being with multiple men and then multiple women" implies that she is "a promiscuous slut." Obviously enough, plaintiff can only recover damages on her libel cause of action if she can establish that the article was in fact defamatory - "tend[ing] to expose [her] to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of [her] in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive [her] of their friendly intercourse in society" (Rinaldi, 42 NY2d at 379). The Post defendants argue that the statement does not have a defamatory meaning because the statement only reported that plaintiff had a sexual fantasy; it did not report that plaintiff actually engaged in sexual conduct with multiple men and multiple women or otherwise acted on the fantasy. For that reason, according to the Post defendants, the statement does not imply that plaintiff is promiscuous and therefore is not actionable. Plaintiff argues that the statement suggests that she is so perverted that she publishes an online diary of masturbatory fantasies of group sex and therefore implies that she is promiscuous. Thus, according to plaintiff, the statement is defamatory...

At bottom, plaintiff's claim of defamation rests on the contention that the average reader reasonably would infer that someone with such a lewd fantasy also is in fact sexually promiscuous. That some readers might draw this inference does not render it reasonable.